Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Technology Your Rights Online

Narus Develops Social Media Sleuth 96

Posted by samzenpus
from the nowhere-to-hide dept.
maximus1 writes "Narus is developing a new technology code-named Hone that can be used to identify anonymous users of social networks and Internet services. Hone can do some pretty 'scary' things, says Antonio Nucci, chief technology officer with Narus. Hone uses artificial intelligence to analyze e-mails and can link mails to different accounts, doing what Nucci calls topical analysis. 'It's going to go through a set of documents and automatically it's going to organize them in topics — I'm not talking about keywords as is done today, I'm talking about topics,' he said. That can't be done with today's technology, he said. 'If you search for fertilizers on Google ... it's going to come back with 6.5 million pages. Enjoy,' he said. 'If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer ... it's not even searchable.' Nucci will discuss Hone at the RSA Conference in San Francisco Friday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Narus Develops Social Media Sleuth

Comments Filter:
  • scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drDugan (219551) * on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:21PM (#31352728) Homepage

    More ridiculous terrorism scare tactics used for attention.

    "If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer..." No, I don't. Most likely you'll find a bunch of harmless pot growers and housewives trying to grow pretty flowers. People smart enough to really harm a well run society aren't posting details on the Internet. For the rest of us, these people will just take all the money you can from selling other people's (previously) private data.

    No matter how hard we try, we will not stop determined individuals from attacking any society unless we effectively remove all freedoms from the citizens. I choose freedom over safety every time. The solutions to terrorism are NOT more or better surveillance, better technology, or more war. Real solutions include primarily the creation of a society that people don't WANT to attack. The reasons people have for suicide bombing and terrorism are usually pretty damn clear: they have nothing left to lose, and someone took advantage of them to direct their hate toward the easiest, most hated target.

    Well, you want to fix terrorism, then address the real reasons for hating your society; it's pretty simple, and the only thing that really works.

    Stories like this, about "scary" technology advances, remind me that as technology moves forward, the essential nature of the rights and freedoms that the US used to stand for and defend are more important now than ever before.

    Here's what I'd like to find: A non-tax-cheat who is also a congress member. Oh, oh, how about a politician that still has a moral compass at all? A single honest politician? Even one? Let's find non-doctors charging Medicare. Corrupt cops. Meth distributors. Human traffickers. Murderers. People who built technology just to make money using other people's personal data, and try and frame it using terrorism scare tactics. Oh wait...

    • HOLLLARIT!
    • Re:scare tactics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:29PM (#31352790)

      then address the real reasons for hating your society

      That depends on what they hate you for. Some people do indeed hate people for their ideology. It's happened quite often in history. You think the Jews' problem was something other than what Hitler believed, not what the Jews believed? Or France, for that matter?

      Pulling out the "terrorists just hate the US because of what the US has done" should be based on what the said terrorist has said, not based on what we think the US does wrong. Do I think the US does things wrong? Oh, definitely. But I don't think we can assume terrorists would stop hating the US if the US fixed things they did wrong. And it hasn't worked that way for a long time. Russia appeared to hate the US for a time because it saw the US as an obstruction to what Russia wanted (world communism). Hitler hated everybody because they stood in the way of what he wanted (a German/Arian world)...

      But I do agree with most of your last paragraph... I wouldn't mind finding a non-tax-cheating Congress member, a "good person" politician, etc. And I'm all for lowering power abuse and crime.

      • A lot of the people who think you can reason with terrorists follow the logic that if only women didn't upset men, they wouldn't be raped.

        It takes two to tango, it takes one to start a war.

        If you say "I have no problem with X", then you are both extremely arrogant and sticking your head in the sand. You suggest that you are the only one who matters in this relationship. That if you don't hate them, how can they possibly hate you? It is "If I can't see them, they can't see me". A very childish way to deal

      • Re:scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ultranova (717540) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @05:23AM (#31355896)

        That depends on what they hate you for. Some people do indeed hate people for their ideology. It's happened quite often in history. You think the Jews' problem was something other than what Hitler believed, not what the Jews believed? Or France, for that matter?

        One of the reasons Hitler got into power in the first place was that he promised to overturn the completely unreasonable and punitive towards Germany peace treaty of WWI. One of the reasons why no one tried to stop him before it was too late was that the victors of that war had a guilty conscience over the same treaty.

        And your example is flawed in other ways too. For example, Hitler didn't pick Jews arbitrarily; he picked them because they were the terrorists/commies/witches of their time, widely believed to be trying to destroy Western civilization for some vague nefarious ideological reasons. It was easy for Hitler to fan that fear, and to convince people the Jews were trying to destroy their lifestyle and would never stop, so the people needed to give him the power to deal with the problem; in other words, exactly the same shit as we are having nowadays.

        Pulling out the "terrorists just hate the US because of what the US has done" should be based on what the said terrorist has said, not based on what we think the US does wrong.

        Don't most of them name some specific real or perceived wrong as their motivation? Osama, for example, took exception to US troops in Middle-East.

        But I don't think we can assume terrorists would stop hating the US if the US fixed things they did wrong.

        They would, however, have a lot harder time recruiting people willing to die just to take Americans with them.

        • And your example is flawed in other ways too. For example, Hitler didn't pick Jews arbitrarily; he picked them because they were the terrorists/commies/witches of their time, widely believed to be trying to destroy Western civilization for some vague nefarious ideological reasons. It was easy for Hitler to fan that fear, and to convince people the Jews were trying to destroy their lifestyle and would never stop, so the people needed to give him the power to deal with the problem; in other words, exactly the

        • Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, Hitler didn't pick Jews arbitrarily and they weren't the only ones he picked. But he also decided he wanted to conquer every other nation. That is more along the lines of what I was specifically referring to... if Islamic wackos want to have an Islamic world then they aren't going to settle for being nice to us just because they can't find something to blame us for. Human beings are amazingly adept at making up things or skewing things so that they can blame it on s

        • by Sarlin (1309837)
          Go back to your cave you nit wit punk. You must be French...probably carry a white hanky in your back pocket. Grow a brain and quit making excuses for terrorists, you piece of shit.
      • Do I think the US does things wrong? Oh, definitely. But I don't think we can assume terrorists would stop hating the US if the US fixed things they did wrong

        I don't think you can assume that all terrorists would stop hating the US if the US were to clean up its act in a few areas. On the other hand, it seems like a fair bet that a lot of them wouldn't hate the US quite so much.

        Which could be good. You could probably get quite a lot of them to the point where, while they didn't like you very much, they

        • Yes, granted. And I am all for trying to be a nation that acts as best as possible. I am not sure, though, that the particular brand of terrorists that we are currently fighting would stop hating us. They hate Israel, they hate the West, they hate Westerners, they hate non-Islamic religions, they hate even fellow Muslims.

          Think of it this way: if they are willing to kill their family members because that family member became a non-Muslim, I doubt they have as much struggle killing an infidel that never wa

          • I am not sure, though, that the particular brand of terrorists that we are currently fighting would stop hating us. They hate Israel, they hate the West, they hate Westerners, they hate non-Islamic religions, they hate even fellow Muslims.

            Well, yes, up to a point. I mean if you only consider those who are utterly and implacabbly consumed by hate for the US, then you'll probably find they're going to remain consumed with hate no matter what you do. I know you're not trying to condemn all muslims, but you'r

            • ...but you're still assuming that all those that your are "currently fighting" are cut from the same cloth. I think that's probably a mistake.

              That could be. I'm not necessarily defending everything the US or any other country does, nor saying they don't make mistakes, etc. What I am saying, though, is that not doing anything - militarily/violently - against at least those that are actually consumed in this way ... well, it won't help to do nothing. Furthermore, people are easily misled. People like hating. Pick any world leader or even a corporate leader and you'll find people that hate him.

              Look at it this way: even assuming that you're correct in your depiction of current anti-US terrorists, there's a whole generation of kids growing up that haven't yet learned to hate the US. An opponent who relies on suicide bombers needs a constant supply of angry youth, or else they quickly run out of martyrs.

              That's quite true. Unfortunately, youth are very

              • An opponent who relies on suicide bombers needs a constant supply of angry youth, or else they quickly run out of martyrs.

                That's quite true. Unfortunately, youth are very easily swayed and very easily will hate someone for perceived - true or not - wrongs

                mmm... still, it's a matter of degree once again. None of those kids got annoyed enough to set off any bombs. There's a critical threshold here, and it pays to keep as many people on the "non explosive" side of it as possible.

                At the end of the day, th

                • I think I basically agree with you in principle, but am not sure that there aren't groups of wacko people that want to kill you that simply don't respond to polite. Thanks for the discussion though. :)
    • by flyneye (84093)

      "No matter how hard we try, we will not stop determined individuals from attacking any society"

      Mr. Smith says "You're wrong". Mr. Wesson agrees.

      "Real solutions include primarily the creation of a society that people don't WANT to attack. ''

      Yeah just like France prepping for the Nazis. They're still a force to reckon with ~snort...

      "Oh, oh, how about a politician that still has a moral compass at all? A single honest politician?"

      • Mr. Smith says "You're wrong". Mr. Wesson agrees.

        Mister RPG and Mister Missile beg to differ.

        While defending yourself is great, that doesn't make people not want to attack you, and it won't stop a determined person, either. It just makes the determined people need bigger weapons, that they can get you with from further away. Which, incidentally, also tend to cause more damage when they're used.

        The arms race with the Soviets was pointless, dangerous, environmentally damaging, and economically crippling. Now you're advocating the same thing with terrorists?

        • by flyneye (84093)

          Well I suppose all that may be true according to a state approved education by an unexperienced pacifist.

          Speak softly and carry a big stick. Then don't stop using it till all the hard parts are gone and nothing left but red mush and grease.

          This is the way the world has run since before recorded history. Some peacenik who thinks they can change the world by holdin hands and singin "Kum Ba Yah" are just a funny accident waiting to happen.
          Even pacifist Buddhists will tell yo

          • No I don't advocate scare tactics, using a gun to scare someone only makes them come back later with a bigger gun. Use the gun in your hand and empty it into them, their friends and family.

            Which works really well, until you realize that you have no idea who all their friends are, and you now have twice as many people as you just killed, all pissed off at you and bent on your destruction. All at the same time as you're out of ammo.

            I haven't had a "state approved education." I hate government structures, politics, propaganda, power-mongering, and all the rest of that crap. My philosophy in life is pretty much Timothy Leary's statement: "Think for yourself and question authority."

            But to assum

            • by flyneye (84093)

              Who's outa ammo? Not me.
              I like Tim too, but he failed to make any real impact in his lifetime.
              If you make a good enough example of an attacker, it will serve as warning to others.
              Sure, someone better ready for battle may come, the world works that way and you won't get any argument from Darwin.
              To live in denial is to get taken out in the first round. I intend to be around quite a few rounds.

    • Actually, you type "fertilizer + bomb" in to google.

      It still gives you 106,000 results, completely invalidating his original point about how weeding out farmers gives you a usefully small search set.

      Any terrorist with half a brain is going to use euphemisms, switched words, code, etc. About all you're going to reliably turn up is a list of every school boy in America, every news agency that's ever posted a story on a bomber using fertilizer and a crackpot on a compound in Arkansas who's only a danger to him

      • Actually, you type "fertilizer + bomb" in to google.

        It still gives you 106,000 results, completely invalidating his original point about how weeding out farmers gives you a usefully small search set.

        Any terrorist with half a brain is going to use euphemisms, switched words, code, etc. About all you're going to reliably turn up is a list of every school boy in America, every news agency that's ever posted a story on a bomber using fertilizer and a crackpot on a compound in Arkansas who's only a danger to himself anyway.

        They don't even need to obfuscate the terms. If they are outside the States they can just plain look it up in the most overt terms possible. And also, possibly in Arabic/Urdu/Korean/AnythingButEnglish. I routinely search terms in at least two languages other than English in Google (top dog in search, I'm told...) and search quality is considerably lower, even accounting for a smaller universe.

        And even if they are in the USA and searching in English, they can just do it from a Starbucks two towns away, or th

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ron Paul is pretty honest. . . and there are others, usually trashed by the corporate media, but anyway:

      I completely agree with you. This has gotten so far out of control. It needs to stop. This whole idea that society is safer with no freedom and an out of control corrupt government is nonsense. I don't care what excuse is made, whether real or manufactured, losing freedom is not worth whatever perceived benefit such measures could provide (Which is: None).

      Not only is it a monumental waste of money in a ti

    • More ridiculous terrorism scare tactics used for attention.

      "If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer..." Let's find non-doctors charging Medicare. Corrupt cops. Meth distributors. Human traffickers. Murderers. People who built technology just to make money using other people's personal data, and try and frame it using terrorism scare tactics. Oh wait...

      That is actually a pretty good suggestion, except that unless you are the press who's gonna have the resources to run stuff like this? or the interest in outing these people and the stamina to stand behind their work and resist the counterattacks? All while claiming to have a legitimate interest in snooping on vast swaths of people to find out...

      Accountability is not something anybody in power seems interested in, or likely to allow random people like you and I to wield over them.

    • Re:scare tactics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387) on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:09AM (#31355554) Journal

      A non-tax-cheat who is also a congress member. Oh, oh, how about a politician that still has a moral compass at all? A single honest politician? Even one?

      The problem with being an honest politician is most people would rather vote for a dishonest person who will do what they want than an honest person who does what they don't want. I believe this is the main formula for Bill Clinton's success, along with many other politicians.

    • Well, you want to fix terrorism, then address the real reasons for hating your society; it's pretty simple, and the only thing that really works.

      brother, that is easier said than done ...
      what if someone hates you simply because you are are Hindu or a Sikh ? do you expect me to give up my Hindu or Sikh identity ?
      what if someone hates you simply because you send your daughter to school and expect her to earn a honest living as a professional ? do you expect me keep my daughter locked up in the house ... and marry her off at puberty ?

      get real brother, because the real world has people who need no real reason to hate you.

    • by janerules (940212)
      And, pedophiles...
  • I'm not sure what the customer base is here outside of law enforcement. Google maybe, or some of the other online ad networks? Who else could possibly a) have the capability to figure out the various network connections without wiretapping, and b) be interested to know that blogger John is Facebook user Jane when John and Jane don't disclose common information?

    Either they're talking trivial data mining, or they're talking spooky invasion of privacy. If it's the former, I'm not impressed. If it's the latter.

    • as if you need wiretapping to get all this info. Have you been paying attention lately? We gave away our right to privacy at least 5 years ago. It's gone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by teh moges (875080)
      You don't need to market to 'the masses' to make (substantial) money off a product. Law enforcement is a big enough market if you get good saturation and Google + other ad networks would be a massive market.
    • Re:Ummmm.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by chill (34294) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @11:11PM (#31354036) Journal

      Narus' entire customer base is pretty much government & law enforcement. Narus Insight is the toy used by the NSA to sniff Internet traffic.

  • Why the fuck (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    would they have access to my emails in the first place.
    The captcha is dignity, which is fitting considering this world seems to have lost it's.

    • by RMH101 (636144)
      it's NARUS. i.e. it's Israeli tech, aimed at governments who want to do smart intercepts. They sell the equipment that the US government installs into ISPs for monitoring.
  • Whats the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ickleberry (864871) <web@pineapple.vg> on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:44PM (#31352916) Homepage
    People making bombs are hardly going to talk about it on Faceshit or other worthless social sites. They are already using encryption - probably one time pads, steganography, shared secret encryption with infinite-length keys and the like and will always be able to continue doing so.

    This will more likely be used to convict people for sharing mp3's, using 'stolen' wifi, people who built a small extension to their house in the middle of nowhere without straight away notifying the local government so they can pay their new and increased rates of property tax. This will be used to implement an ultra-controlled very rigidly regulated society which most people if you talk to them seem to approve of.

    Man's greatest addiction is controlling other people's lives

    ".... should be banned because it didn't work out so well for one person"
    ".... should not be allowed because it affects the view from my house"
    ".... should be taxed to death. Put those damn rich people back where they belong."
    ".... is evil, could lead to any number of bigger problems and should be banned."
    ".... cannot be installed by anyone other than a highly trained professional because one person died trying"
    ".... is bad for the environment and should not be allowed."
    ".... should not be allowed to sit in a playground by himself because he might be a future paedophile"

    We have nobody to blame but ourselves for overregulation, we desire control, order and security so much that the government is scrambling to find ways to enforce the presently unenforceable. First the church was used as an excuse for ruining people's enjoyment, now its 'de children', the environment and the notion that 'mere humans' cant handle much freedom without losing the plot
    • by westlake (615356)

      People making bombs are hardly going to talk about it on Faceshit or other worthless social sites. They are already using encryption - probably one time pads, steganography, shared secret encryption with infinite-length keys and the like and will always be able to continue doing so.

      Real spies hate spy tech.

      Simply to possess it compounds the risk of exposure.

      Real spies network. There is nothing quite so anonymous and reassuring as being a face in the crowd.

       

    • by RMH101 (636144)
      you're just arguing parameters. Say you start trawling for:
      1) people who appear to be exchanging keys over email, or encrypt their traffic
      2) similar IPs who make purchases or enquiries online into ordering fertiliser, or activator ingredients, or GSM SIM cards etc
      3) people who are already on watch lists etc
      It'll eb down to intelligence analysts to set the parameters, but this looks like a very clever and very scary tool to bring together bits of evidence that woulnd't be worth much in isolation into a
  • by pgn674 (995941) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:53PM (#31352994) Homepage
    Hah! I get 94 results! And... the first result is Slashdot. And there are no results that don't have the word 'for' in front of 'non-farmers'...
  • Semantic web (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    'It's going to go through a set of documents and automatically it's going to organize them in topics — I'm not talking about keywords as is done today, I'm talking about topics,' he said. That can't be done with today's technology, he said.

    It sounds like what he's talking about is semantic parsing of data. If his system is predicated on automated semantic data parsing, that seems like a pretty big step in the project. It's a problem that CS has been working on for decades. It's not exactly a minor

    • by radtea (464814)

      It sounds like what he's talking about is semantic parsing of data.

      And since data has no semantics, we're probably all safe, until of course the men in black come charging through the door and kill us all because we said something like, "I'm getting so pissed off at guys who hire Chinese kids to go put in game time for them and build their gold reserves. Non-farmers need to get together and see if we can't find some good old fashion organic fertilizer to throw at those bastards."

      • And since data has no semantics

        Excuse me ? Only totally incoherent data has no semantics. From any set of data having a coherence greater than zero, at least part of the semantics can be deduced by internal analysis ( you do that every time when you solve a puzzle, for example )

  • Man what a scam. One paragraph, a cheezy search algorythm
    and approach the department of defence.

    Put in the title protect children from terrorists
    and they wont even read past the front page.
    • by h3llfish (663057)
      Artificial intelligence! Sounds mighty impressive. So this search algorithm can pass a Turing test, huh? What a breakthrough!

      Sounds like data mining to me. The concept is not new, and the incorrect use of buzzwords is a serious red flag. Perhaps the system is indeed powerful and maybe even innovative, but AI? No. If this thing gains sentience and annihilates mankind, I will apologize to it for saying that.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The automated categorization of text by topic is not new. Latent Semantic Indexing [wikipedia.org] has been in use for just this purpose since 1992. Perhaps Narus is taking a new approach, but the concept itself is far from the revolutionary breakthrough they would have you believe.

  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @09:23PM (#31353202)

    In many ways, the cyber world is ideal for subversive and terrorist activities, said Antonio Nucci, chief technology officer with Narus. "For bad people, it's an easy place to hide," Nucci said. "They can get lost and very easily hide behind a massive ocean of legal digital transactions."

    I would really, really like to take people who are promoting "security" and who say "the Internet is an easy place to hide", to someplace private and then continuously bitch-slap them until they admit that they are either stupid or dishonest.

    If they want to investigate a place where it's "easy to hide", I suggest they try their data-mining tools on the mails, or UPS or Fed-Ex. And good f**ing luck to them.

  • by Datamonstar (845886) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @09:37PM (#31353280)
    Dude needs to learn how to use Google before he takes on a task of this magnitude. Or, more aptly, before TALKING about taking on a task of this magnitude, which is all he's doing at the moment.
  • by ShinmaWa (449201) on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @09:41PM (#31353310)

    'If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer ... it's not even searchable.'

    This sounds an awful lot like the semantic web [wikipedia.org]. Specifically, this sounds exactly like what WebFountain [wikipedia.org] does (and has done since 2003).

  • Interested in Narus? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @10:07PM (#31353486)

    PBS' Frontline [pbs.org] released a documentary called "Spying on the Home Front" [pbs.org] all the way back on May 15th, 2007. The entire documentary is available for viewing online (I believe it's even accessible in Canada; I'm not sure about access from other countries) at that Frontline site. If you're short on time, click the "Watch the Full Program Online" link on the right-hand side of the page, and then click on Chapter 3 in the new window that appears (it's titled "The NSA's Eavesdropping at AT&T"). The whole chapter only lasts about 10 minutes, but again, if you're short on time fast-forward through the chapter to about 4:30. That's the point where Mark Klein describes when he first became aware that a Narus STA system had been installed inside a secret room at a major AT&T facility. Shortly thereafter Brian Reid elaborates on exactly what its presence meant.

    Even better, at about 5:05 an interview with Steve Bannerman, VP of Narus Marketing begins, at which point he begins describing just how deeply into network traffic their hardware can probe.

    And beautifully, at about 6:35, Steve Bannerman suddenly becomes aware of exactly how deep a whole he's dug for himself, and becomes visibly flustered, starts stammering, and eventually trails off with a couple of classic lines like, "as far as I know, no one's ever proved [sic] anything!"

    That part's worth rewinding and replaying a few times over.

    Please forgive my obvious schadenfreude, but in the face of entities like the NSA and Naurus, who together apparently have complete access to anything of mine -- and that of my friends, and my family -- that travels over the Internet, schadenfreude is all I've got left.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Mod parent up insightful. Or funny. Or scary ... as apparently even Narus itself will describe some of its own capabilities that way.

    • by ekimminau (775300)
      I knew about this interview but never knew it was made available online. Thanks for the link and the details of where to look. Bannerman talks about only part of the capabilities of a product that has progressed to much more powerful hardware on much faster CPU with much more RAm and MUCH faster storage. Real time data analysis at theoretical full pipe bandwidth with multiple data source aggregation is that much easier. The larger your data sources, the greater the probability of cross identification in th
  • by ameline (771895) <.ian.ameline. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @10:45PM (#31353842) Homepage Journal

    Personally I think this guy and his company can be compared (unfavorably most likely) to a steaming pile of hot, fresh organic fertilizer.

    P.S. I'm not a farmer.

  • They know your looking at IM, forums, google ect. http://wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org] google cache has a link to
    http://indect-project.eu/files/deliverables/public/INDECT_Deliverable_4.1_v20090630a.pdf/at_download/file [indect-project.eu]
    Anybody of interest knows to keep a very low profile.
    Never buy too much of anything thats a direct step to a listed watched chemical.
    Never talk to strangers online about political ideas.
    Stay out of web 2.0. If mainstream US cable news and the US mil is talking up twitter, never use twitter.
    Learn ho
  • He wants to compare similar data from social networks to identify people. So, a person who has something to hide is going to give his real birthday on all sites he uses to hide on? Why?

    It would be like me creating a false passport, with my real data. How about getting a fake id, with your real age to get into bars?

    How about a fake University diploma, that shows you failed... A fake doctors license, that has 'revoked' stamped on it? How about stealing the bank details, from a homeless person.

    • by ekimminau (775300)
      You are missing the level of complexity of Narus STA when deployed at all of the major ingress and egress points of the largest back bone providers. Search for all occurances of Source IP Match All source MAC Query all destination Query & Store all transferred by file type: JPG, BMP, MOV, MP3 Query and store all (VOIP, SIP) streams data (source (IP,MAC), destination (IP, MAC), start time, end time, QOS, bandwidth, bytes inbound, bytes outbound (set tag, capture all futures streams) Search for MATCH of
  • 'If you search for fertilizers on Google ... it's going to come back with 6.5 million pages. Enjoy,' he said. 'If you want to search for non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer ... it's not even searchable.'

    Sure it is. 6,499,996 of those 6.5m are non farmers discussing fertilizer. With mega farms taking over farming, there are only, what, four actual farmers in America. </joke>

    Even if we assume there are huge numbers of farmers on the internets, discussing fertilizer all day... He's implying 6.5m is too large a set to go through but the non farmer set is small enough to manually browse through. Really? So there aren't millions of home owners with gardens in America? There aren't tens of thousands of HOAs

  • Apologies, I'm reposting this from a few months ago, but I thought it was appropriate:

    The faded gold lettering on the door says "Philip Marlowe." My digs aren't in the greatest part of town, but that suits me just fine. I'm a blogger-one of the few honest ones out there. Work was a little slow-I was spending some time on important research-reading Slashdot. I was just about to hit the submit button on a post entitled "Frosty Piss!" when the dame shrugged her way through my door. If I'd have known what was g

  • On the internet? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anne_Nonymous (313852)

    > non-farmers who are discussing fertilizer

    That's pretty much the whole internet; a lot of non-farmers talking a bunch of shit.

  • ... are going to ruin us all!

  • Narus products have always been about telling you who is doing what with you, when and for how long on your network. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70914 [wired.com] http://www.scribd.com/doc/27629223/All-About-NSA-s-and-AT-amp-T-s-Big-Brother-Machine-The-Narus [scribd.com] http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/631feature06.html [xchangemag.com] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/8/14724/28476 [dailykos.com] There has even been speculation that their products are at the core of "Carnivore" and/or "ESCHELON" http://www.texaskaos.com/show [texaskaos.com]

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...